water scarcity in the desert metropolis: how environmental values, knowledge and concern affect las...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]On: 05 October 2014, At: 17:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
Water scarcity in the desertmetropolis: how environmental values,knowledge and concern affect LasVegas residents’ support for waterconservation policyMarko Salvaggio a , Robert Futrell a , Christie D. Batson a &Barbara G. Brents aa Department of Sociology , University of Nevada , Las Vegas, 4505S. Maryland Parkway, Box 455033, Las Vegas , Nevada , USAPublished online: 22 Mar 2013.
To cite this article: Marko Salvaggio , Robert Futrell , Christie D. Batson & Barbara G. Brents (2014)Water scarcity in the desert metropolis: how environmental values, knowledge and concern affectLas Vegas residents’ support for water conservation policy, Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement, 57:4, 588-611, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2012.756806
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.756806
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Water scarcity in the desert metropolis: how environmental values,
knowledge and concern affect Las Vegas residents’ support
for water conservation policy
Marko Salvaggio�, Robert Futrell, Christie D. Batson and Barbara G. Brents
Department of Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway,Box 455033, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89154-5033, USA
(Received 30 March 2012; final version received 5 December 2012)
This paper examines important associations between environmental values,knowledge, concern and attitudes about water conservation policies in a desertmetropolis. Specifically, we consider: (a) the combined influence of environmentalvalue orientation, knowledge of drought conditions and concern about water use onsupport for water conservation policies; (b) the relative association of each individualvariable on policy support; (c) factors explaining support to increase water prices andrestrict water use; and (d) associations between socio-demographic factors and waterpolicy support. Based on data from the 2009 Las Vegas Metropolitan Area SocialSurvey, we find that environmental value orientation, knowledge and concern are allsignificant predictors of water conservation, but concern stands out as the primarypredictor for water policy support. Knowledge of drought conditions is the strongestpredictor of support for water price increases, while concern predicts support for wateruse restrictions. We discuss theoretical implications and offer suggestions for watermanagement, conservation and outreach.
Keywords: water policy; new ecological paradigm; environment; attitudes; values
1. Introduction
Water scarcity tops the list of environmental, economic and political problems facing
residents of the US desert southwest. The Las Vegas, Nevada, metropolitan area is in a
particularly precarious position. Population growth over the last 50 years created
imbalances in water supply and demand. An increase in the population has meant more
water consumption in an area facing drought conditions and climate change pressures.
Water management agencies are pursuing supply-sided strategies to augment decreasing
flows of Colorado River water into the Lake Mead reservoir by diverting water from rural
aquifers more than 250 miles away in Northern Nevada to the Las Vegas valley. Since
2003, water managers have also implemented demand-sided strategies to limit residential
and business water consumption in Las Vegas. Despite these efforts, hydrologists estimate
that there is a 50% chance that Lake Mead will be dry by 2021 if climate changes as
expected and future water usage is not curtailed (Scripps Institution of Oceanography 2008).
Water conservation is a policy imperative in Las Vegas and other desert cities where
urban development causes a strain on the existing water supply (Castro 2007).
Understanding the social-psychological bases for water conservation policy support
among urban populations is critical to developing effective strategies for managing water
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
� 2013 University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014
Vol. 57, No. 4, 588–611, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.756806
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
scarcity. In this paper, we follow recent efforts to conceptualise multidimensional
constructs and measures to understand the complex and varying relationships between
environmental perspectives and the implications for the social feasibility of water
management options (Larson 2010; Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a).
We have two primary research objectives in this study. First, we offer the first empirical
examination of factors affecting Las Vegas residents’ views towards water scarcity and
water policy. Second, we ask precisely how environmental value orientation, cognitive
judgements and affective judgements influence Las Vegas valley residents’ support for
water conservation policies. We draw on the 2009 Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Social
Survey to describe relationships among Las Vegans’ environmental values and attitudes and
how they affect support for water conservation policies. Specifically, we describe the
individual and combined effect of environmental values, knowledge of drought conditions,
and concern about water use on support for water conservation policies. We also discuss
factors explaining support for two key water conservation policies: increasing water prices
and restricting residential water use.
2. Environmental values, attitudes and water conservation
Understanding the relationship between values, attitudes and action is vital to developing
socially acceptable and effective natural resource management strategies, but clarifying
those relationships has been conceptually complicated (Dunlap et al. 2000; Stern 2000;
Larson 2010). A wide range of research focuses on the role of values and normative
attitudes underlying environmental behaviour. Some scholarship demonstrates that the
more strongly individuals subscribe to values beyond their immediate self interests, such
as altruistic, pro-social or biospheric values, the more likely they are to support
environmental policies and engage in pro-environmental activities, such as water
conservation (Stern and Dietz 1994; Stern et al. 1995b; Schultz and Zelezny 1999; De
Groot and Steg 2007, 2008). Researchers have identified a range of factors that predict
positive attitudes towards water conservation, which may, in turn, shape political support
for conservation policies and influence actual behaviour (Dolnicar, Hurlimann, and Gr€un2012). Key variables include pro-environmental attitudes (Corral-Verdugo, Bechtel, and
Fraijo 2003; Corral-Verdugo and Frias-Armenta 2006), information about water scarcity
and conservation strategies (Trumbo and O’Keefe 2005), knowledge of drought and
climate change (Dziegielewski 1991; Lam 2006; Clark and Finley 2007), along with
demographic variables such as gender (Lipchin et al. 2005) and income (Gregory and Di
Leo 2003; Miller and Buys 2008).
Social-psychological studies have looked closely at the relationship between
knowledge and information about drought conditions and water scarcity and attitudes
towards water conservation (Dziegielewski 1991). Several studies demonstrate that
people who understand the environmental, social and economic benefits of water
conservation are more likely to conserve water (Cameron and Wright 1990; Middlestadt
et al. 2001; Corral-Verdugo 2002; Corral-Verdugo, Bechtel, and Fraijo 2003; Dolnicar,
Hurlimann, and Gr€un 2012). Research also suggests that knowledge of climate change
and its relationship to water shortage positively influences attitudes towards water
conservation (Clark and Finley 2007). More specifically, Trumbo and O’Keefe (2005)
demonstrated that information about water scarcity and conservation is an important
mediating variable between people’s attitudes towards conservation and their behavioural
intention to actually conserve water. People interested in water conservation are more
likely to actually conserve as they acquire more information about water conditions and
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 589
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
conservation strategies (also see, Dolnicar, Hurlimann, and Gr€un 2012). These findings
are consistent with studies that show a positive relationship between knowledge about
environmental problems and support for environmentally responsible behaviours more
generally (Fransson and G€arling 1999).Although demand-side conservation incentives, such as increasing water prices, is a
widely touted strategy to decrease household water use, most research that includes water
price as a determinant of residential water consumption describes water demand as
inelastic and concludes that money does not impact consumption nearly as much as
personal values and attitudes (e.g. Buttel 1987; Pint 1999; Dalhuisen et al. 2003). That is,
while financial incentives shape resource consumption, taken alone they will not
fundamentally change attitudes (Gardner and Stern 1996).
3. Guiding theoretical frameworks and constructs
We follow recent moves to integrate value-belief-norm theory with the tripartite approach
(Eagly and Chaiken 1993; Dunlap and Jones 2002; Larson 2010; Larson, Ibes, and White
2011a) to build more robust specifications of relationships among attitudes and other
constructs such as values, beliefs and behavioural intentions (also see, Ester 1981; Gray
1985). These perspectives specify that environmental actions result from an interaction of
individuals’ values and attitudes about environmental problems and their solutions (Stern
2000). Value orientations about nature and society, such as the basic beliefs captured by
the New Ecological Paradigm scale, refer to relatively stable orientations such as
anthropocentric or biocentric values that influence people’s specific environmental
judgements and actions (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000; Larson 2010).
Attitude refers to a positive or negative evaluation of some entity or phenomenon (Eagly
and Chaiken 1993, 2007; Larson 2010). Research on environmental values and
environmental policy suggests that the degree to which people emphasise anthropocentric
or biocentric values affects their attitudes towards environmental resource management
regimes, ranging from wildlife management (Hunter and Rinner 2004) to water
conservation (Coral-Verdugo et al. 2008).
Attitudinal research generally suggests that specific attitudes have greater influence on
behaviour than broad value orientations. The tripartite framework specifically
conceptualises environmental attitudes as comprised by three distinctive dimensions:
cognitive, affective and conative judgements (Dunlap and Jones 2002; Larson 2010).1
Cognitive judgements refer to one’s personal knowledge and beliefs about nature and
society, which include perceived causes of environmental problems (Dunlap and Jones
2002; Larson 2010). Cognitive judgements can range from minimal knowledge required to
be aware of a specific problem to understanding very issue-specific technical information
(Dunlap and Jones 2002). Affective judgements refer to feelings about whether one cares
or is concerned about a societal goal or an environmental action. Conative judgements are
most closely linked to human behaviour and refer to one’s disposition or intention to
support a societal goal or environmental policy (Dunlap and Jones 2002; Larson 2010).
We recognise that cognitive, affective and conative judgements are distinct, yet are
interrelated features of individuals’ attitudes towards environmental issues (Dunlap and
Jones 2002; Larson 2010). Cognitive judgements are distinct from affective and conative
judgements “because they do not inherently imply personal worry or emotional
attachment to an issue . . . nor do they necessarily reflect what people think ought to be
done about problems” (Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a, 420). Conversely, cognitive
judgements can also influence emotional feelings and intended actions towards
590 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
environmental issues. Indeed, Bamberg and Moser (2007) hypothesise that cognitive
factors and emotional judgements are important antecedents to conative dispositions to
act. Using the tripartite conceptual framework as our theoretical guide, we ask precisely
how Las Vegas residents’ environmental value orientations, cognitive judgements and
affective judgements are related to their conative dispositions to support various water
conservation policy measures.
3.1. Value orientations
Environmental value orientations reflect people’s general ideas about humans’
relationship to nature. Research on environmental values often uses the New Ecological
Paradigm (NEP) scale to assess value orientations among populations, employing it
across a variety of substantive topics, geographical areas and cultural contexts (Dunlap
and Van Liere 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000; Dunlap 2008). The NEP analyses five
dimensions of an ecological worldview: (1) limits to growth; (2) anti-anthropocentrism;
(3) fragility of nature’s balance; (4) rejection of human exemption from biophysical
limits; and (5) the potential for ecological crisis (Dunlap et al. 2000). Based on responses
to the NEP questions, persons who are more environmentally concerned tend to endorse
precepts of the New Ecological Paradigm. Indeed, Corral-Verdugo’s et al. (2003, 2008)
work using NEP showed a positive relationship between pro-environmental orientations
and support for water conservation in Latino countries. Similarly, Larson et al. (2011b)
found that pro-environmental orientations measured by NEP are correlated with concern
about water scarcity and consumption and support for water use regulations in Phoenix,
Arizona. Yet, they also noted that pro-environmental values do not explain attitudes
towards pricing policies (Larson et al. 2011b).
Some researchers have critiqued the NEP’s global measurement focus for its inability
to directly predict environmental behaviour (Maineri et al. 1997), arguing that factual
knowledge and individual attitudes play a more important role in environmentally
protective actions (Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuhrer 1999). Other social scientists have
demonstrated the NEP’s favourable reliability, validity and predictive power with regard
to more specific environmental attitudes and actions. Hunter and Rinner’s (2004)
assessment of the relationship between NEP and environmental knowledge even
suggested that, on at least some issues, the NEP worldview may trump knowledge about
specific environmental issues as the primary factor explaining environmental concern.
3.2. Cognitive judgements
Cognitive judgements reflect knowledge about environmental issues and can positively
influence support for environmentally responsible behaviours (Fransson and G€arling1999). However, most research shows that the relationship between knowledge and
action is weak in general and tenuous at best. At a broad level, Martinez-Alier (2002)
argued that the growing prevalence of pro-environmental attitudes in the West during the
1960s and 1970s reflected growing societal understanding of real environmental threats.
Similarly, O’Connor, Bord, and Fisher (1999) demonstrated that knowledge about the
causes of more recent threats such as global warming predicts people’s behavioural
intentions to support policies and engage in practices to reduce human sources of global
warming (also see, Dietz, Dan, and Shwom 2007).
The relationship between knowledge and actions on specific issues such as water
conservation is less clear. Dziegielewski (1991) argued that increasing people’s
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 591
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
knowledge about the existence and implications of serious drought conditions is an
important factor in residential water conservation efforts. On the other hand, Frisk and
Larson’s (2011) review of the environmental knowledge-action relationship shows that
one’s knowledge about how environmental systems operate has little direct effect on pro-
environmental behaviours. Indeed, Harlan et al’s. (2009) study of household water
consumption in Phoenix, Arizona, found that environmental values and knowledge did
little to explain water conservation. Instead, residents with a higher household income
and larger homes were less likely to conserve water.
Knowing about water shortages combined with an understanding of available
conservation measures may positively affect water conservation practices. Corral-
Verdugo (2002) and Middlestadt et al. (2001) explained that people who clearly
understand how to conserve water and the social and economic benefits of water
conservation are more likely to practice water conservation (also see, Frisk and Larson
2011). Similarly, Cameron and Wright (1990) argued that those who best understand the
benefits of water conservation technology for the home are more likely to participate in
water conservation efforts such as home retrofitting programmes to decrease water use.
3.3. Affective judgements
Affective judgements reflect concern about an environmental practice, which in our case
is the amount of water used by residents. Fransson and G€arling (1999) noted that
environmental concern may refer to both a broad general attitude based on a value
orientation, or a more specific attitude that directly influences one’s behavioural
intentions. As a general attitude, concern about environmental degradation tends to be
consistent with more positive attitudes towards environmental protection strategies and
pro-environmental behaviours (Jones and Dunlap 1992; Scott and Willits 1994; Stern,
Dietz, and Guagnano 1995a). Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera’s (1987) meta-analysis of
research on responsible environmental behaviour showed that specifically accounting for
concern towards explicit environmental issues, such as energy conservation and
recycling, is a better predictor of pro-environmental actions than are more general
attitudes about environmental concern. These findings support Van Liere and Dunlap’s
(1980) long-standing claim that environmental concern should be used to measure
specific environmental behavioural intentions or actions, such as energy conservation or,
as in our case, water use and water conservation policy support.2
3.4. Conative judgements
Conative judgements reflect an intention or stated commitment to support actions that
affect environmental quality, which can range from increasing financial costs for
environmentally damaging practices to broader non-financial management schemes (Vaske
and Donnelly 1999; Dunlap and Jones 2002). Conative judgements are most closely linked
to actual behaviour supporting environmental management and conservation policies.
However, conative judgements do not guarantee the behaviour an individual claims to
support will actually occur. Conative judgements about environmental policies can also
vary based on factors such as financial costs. For example, Larson et al. (2011b) explained
that people are more likely to express opposition to water price increases than non-price
conservation policies. Prior research also shows greater public support for voluntary efforts
compared to regulatory and economic measures (Harlan et al. 2006; Larson and
Santelmann 2007).
592 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
4. The current study and hypotheses
Our main goal is to understand how environmental value orientation, cognitive
judgements conceptualised as knowledge of drought affecting the Las Vegas water
supply, and affective judgements conceptualised as concern about water scarcity are
associated with conative judgements supporting water management policies. The water
management policies examined include efficiency improvements, water use restrictions,
water conservation education, and water price increases (see Table 2). We add to current
scholarship on environmental judgements and behaviour by examining different value-
based and attitudinal judgements as predictors of policy support, a key precursor to
environmental action. Our analysis offers a first look at the relationships among Las
Vegas residents’ environmental values, knowledge and concern and how these factors
affect their support for policy to address the most critical environmental problem facing
their desert metropolis. Our study is guided by the following hypotheses:
(1) As prior research has shown, we anticipate that environmental value orientation,
knowledge of drought conditions and concern about water use will each be
positively associated with water policy support.
(2) Based on attitudinal research that has shown specific attitudes to have greater
influence on behaviour than broad value orientations, we anticipate that cognitive
judgement (knowledge) and affective judgement (concern) will mediate the
positive association between environmental value orientation and water policy
support.
(3) Attitudinal research suggests that relatively specific affective concerns influence
policy attitudes more than general environmental value orientations or
knowledge of environmental problems. As a result, we expect our affective
judgement measure of water concern to be a stronger predictor of water policy
support than values and cognitive judgement.
(4) Based on the literature showing greater public support for voluntary efforts versus
regulatory and mandated economic change, Las Vegas residents will express
more support for non-price water policies and be least likely to support water
policies that directly impact their household income.
5. Data and methods
The data for this study were gathered in 22 neighbourhoods in the Southern Nevada
region of the United States that includes Las Vegas and surrounding areas within Clark
County, Nevada. In 2010, Clark County had a population of approximately 1.95 million
people, which is home to 72% of Nevada’s population (US Census Bureau 2010). Our
final sample is across neighbourhoods in the Las Vegas metropolitan area’s four political
jurisdictions: eight in the City of Las Vegas, four in the City of North Las Vegas, four in
the City of Henderson, and six in unincorporated Clark County.
5.1. Neighbourhood conceptualisation
The concept of ‘neighbourhood’ is widely used, yet there appears to be no universally
agreed upon definition. Numerous studies have conceptualised neighbourhoods using
census data boundaries, such as census tracts or block groups (Krivo and Peterson 1996;
Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush 2001; Quillian
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 593
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
2003). On average, census tracts contain approximately 1500 households which include
between 2500 and 8000 people and are designed to be homogenous with respect to
population characteristics, economic status and living conditions (US Department of
Commerce 10-1 1994). The block group is the smallest geographic entity for which the
decennial census tabulates and publishes sample data, and averages approximately 400
households (US Department of Commerce 11-1 1994). Other geographically defined
boundaries include school districts, zip codes and police beats (Campbell and Lee 1992;
Bellair 1997; Sampson et al. 2002; Woldoff 2002; Kruger 2008). However, these
geographic boundaries offer imperfect operational definitions of neighbourhoods for
research and policy (Sampson et al. 2002; Quillian 2003; Kruger 2008). As a result, we
diverged from studies that use census-based boundary definitions and instead collected
information from ‘naturally occurring’ neighbourhoods that lie within census block
groups. We identified neighbourhoods by key physical characteristics within selected
census blocks. These characteristics included: contiguous residences, interconnected
sidewalks, common street signage, common spaces, common mailboxes, street
accessibility, visual homogeneity of housing communities, and barriers separating
housing areas such as gates, waterways, major thoroughfares and intersections.
In the Fall of 2008, we conducted extensive field work to define and identify
neighbourhoods. On-site raters coded physical conditions (i.e. contiguous residences,
sidewalks, street signage, common spaces, mailboxes and barriers such as gates,
waterways and highway intersections), street accessibility and visual homogeneity of
randomly selected census block groups to further delineate neighbourhood boundaries.
Using a stratified (by income) four-stage cluster sample (census tracts, census blocks,
neighbourhoods and households), our study resulted in 22 distinct neighbourhoods.
For inclusion as a study neighbourhood, we specified that there should be least 50
visibly occupied homes to avoid non-response and invalid addresses. Our final sampling
frame of household addresses was compiled from the Clark County, Nevada Assessor’s
Office which maintains electronic records of all residential addresses. Because some
neighbourhoods are larger than others, we randomly selected a range of 40 to 125
addresses from the sampling frame in each neighbourhood. The final study population
included 1680 households in 22 neighbourhoods and resulted in 664 individual
respondents and a 40% response rate.3 The household member with the most recent
birthday and over the age of 18 was asked to complete the survey.
5.2. Sample characteristics
We administered the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Social Survey (LVMASS) to our final
sample. The LVMASS gathered baseline information in 2009 on how residents in a rapidly
growing and environmentally challenged Las Vegas, Nevada, metropolitan region think
about a range of environmental, social and economic sustainability issues. Table 1 displays
sample characteristic proportions for categorical variables and mean scores for continuous
variables. Our sample is 57% female with a mean age of 53 years old. More than 70% of
our sample identifies as white, while 16% identify as Hispanic and 13% identify as a race
or ethnicity other than Hispanic. Nearly 34% of our sample has completed a bachelor’s
degree or more and 79% are homeowners (vs. renters). Geographically, 20% of our sample
lives in downtown urban core neighbourhoods compared to 43% living in suburban and
37% living in the urban periphery fringe neighbourhoods.
According to 2010 US Census data, our analytic sample differs slightly from 2010
population statistics of the Las Vegas metropolitan area (US Census Bureau 2010). As a
594 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
result of sampling very few multi-family housing units, we have a sample that is slightly
older, more likely to be homeowners, have higher incomes and have longer residential
tenure. In addition, while the racial and ethnic backgrounds of our sample are diverse, we
have a slight minority and Hispanic under-representation.
5.3. Survey instrument
Each household received a recruitment letter offering an incentive to participate in the
study and was provided with access to a web-based survey or telephone number to
complete the survey by phone. After exhausting the telephone and web-based responses,
we used mailed surveys and field surveys. While studies have shown that an interviewer
presence (telephone or in-person) can increase social desirability bias in survey research
Table 1. Mean scores and proportions of dependent and independent variables, 2009 LVMASSdata.
Mean Proportion Std. deviation
Conative judegments:Water Policy Support (63-point scale) 44.08 10.68Environmental value orientation:New Ecological Paradigm (40-point scale) 25.23 6.14Cognitive judgement (Knowledge):Las Vegas Valley is in a drought 0.88 0.32Affective judgement (Concern):Concerned for the amount of water
being used by people who livein the Las Vegas Valley
0.89 0.31
GenderFemale 0.57 0.50Male 0.43 0.50Race/ethnicityWhite (Non-Hispanic) 0.71 0.45Hispanic 0.16 0.37Other race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic) 0.13 0.33Age (in years) 53.53 16.57EducationHigh school diploma or less 0.24 0.43Some college 0.43 0.50Bachelor’s degree 0.18 0.39Graduate or professional degree 0.15 0.36Total household income for 2008$20,000 or less 0.09 0.28$20,001–$40,000 0.21 0.41$40,001–$80,000 0.42 0.50$80,001 or more 0.28 0.45Neighbourhood typeUrban core 0.20 0.40Suburban 0.43 0.50Urban fringe 0.37 0.48Housing typeOwn 0.79 0.41Rent 0.21 0.41
Total N ¼ 480
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 595
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
(de Leeuw 2005), the majority of our sample completed their surveys without an
interviewer, either by mail (64%) or Internet (10%). To the extent that social desirability
bias may exist, we suspect it is minimal and in a slightly positive direction. We modelled
several survey questionnaire items from the Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS),
including water policy items and questions about drought knowledge and water use
concern. The survey was administered in English or Spanish by the Cannon Center for
Survey Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
5.4. Dependent variable
Our dependent variable is a scale that measures conative judgements about intended pro-
environmental behaviour by assessing attitudes towards water policy support in Las
Vegas. This measure was used in the PASS study (Harlan et al. 2006) and was slightly
modified in the LVMASS study. Respondents were asked how much they support or
oppose seven water policies that are vital to Southern Nevada conservation efforts.
These policies include: (1) Investing in new technology to use water more efficiently;
(2) Increasing the price of water; (3) Restricting water for residential outdoor uses such as
lawns and fountains; (4) Restricting water for commercial outdoor uses such as fountains,
water intense landscaping and golf courses; (5) Educating the public about how to
conserve water; (6) Improving the management of our water resources; and (7) Finding
and purchasing new sources of water. Response categories for each policy are on a
10-point Likert scale with ‘0’ equal to ‘Strongly oppose’ and ‘9’ equal to ‘Strongly
support’. The water policy scale ranges from 0 to 63. A higher score on the scale indicates
a higher level of water policy support. Item scores were summed for all respondents with
valid responses for all 10 items. According to Table 1, the average water policy support
score for our sample is 44.08. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is 0.733, suggesting that the
scale has internal consistency and is a reliable measure of water policy support.
Table 2 displays the mean scores for each water policy item used in the dependent
variable. The data indicate three tiers of relative support for water policies in Las Vegas.
We show that four water policy items receive the highest level of support from residents
with mean scores ranging between 8 and 9. Residents moderately support two water
items with mean scores ranging from 6 to 7. The third tier shows that residents are least
supportive of water price increases (3.75).
Table 2. Dependent variable scaled items individual mean scores, 2009 LVMASS data.
Water policy items Mean1 SD
Improving the management of our water resources 8.88 1.77Educating the public about how to conserve water 8.76 2.00Investing in new technology to use water more efficiently 8.35 2.17Finding and purchasing new sources of water 8.15 2.44Restricting water for commercial outdoor uses
such as fountains, water intense landscaping and golf courses7.03 2.88
Restricting water for residential outdoor uses such as lawns and fountains 6.16 2.99Increasing the price of water 3.75 2.74
Total N ¼ 4801Scale ranges from 0 to 9 with 9 being ‘strongly support’For each item (min. ¼ 0; max. ¼ 9)
596 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
5.5. Independent variables
Our primary independent variables include environmental value orientation, cognitive
judgement and affective judgement.
5.5.1. New Ecological Paradigm scale
Our measure of environmental value orientation is a modified version of the 15-item New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale to assess five dimensions of residents’ environmental
values. Due to space and time limitations, the survey instrument included only 10 of the
15 NEP items, but these 10 covered all five dimensions (two items per dimension as
described above) to measure environmental values.
We treat the NEP scale as a single variable to measure the presence of pro-ecological
or anthropocentric values.4 Respondents had the choice of indicating whether they
‘Strongly disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’
with each NEP statement. Agreement to six of the items (1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10) and
disagreement to the other four items (2, 4, 6, 7) indicate having pro-ecological values.
Item score ranges from ‘0’ to ‘4’.
The level of NEP endorsement, or pro-environmental value orientation, is based on
where respondents score on a 40-point scale ranging from 0 to 40. A higher score on the
scale indicates a higher level of NEP endorsement. According to Table 1, the mean score
on the NEP scale is 25.23. Cronbach’s alpha of 0.746 for the scale indicates that the scale
is a reliable measure of environmental value orientation.
5.5.2. Knowledge that the Las Vegas valley is in a drought
Our cognitive judgement measure is based on the response to the following question:
“Would you say the Las Vegas Valley is or is not currently in a drought?” A binary
response category is used to indicate whether the Las Vegas Valley ‘Is in a Drought’ or
‘Is Not in a Drought’. According to Table 1, 88% of residents report that the Las Vegas
Valley is in a drought.
5.5.3. Concern about water use in the Las Vegas valley
Our measure of affective judgement about water scarcity is based on the following question:
“Thinking only about the Las Vegas Valley, are you very, somewhat, not too or not at all
concerned about the amount of water being used by people who live here?” Response
categories include ‘Very concerned’, ‘Somewhat concerned’, ‘Not too concerned’ or ‘Not
at all concerned’. For analytic reasons we collapsed the categories to create a binary
variable where those who answered ‘Very concerned’ and ‘Somewhat concerned’ were
recoded as ‘Concerned’ and those who answered ‘Not too concerned’ and ‘Not at all
concerned’ were recoded as ‘Not concerned’. According to Table 1, 89% of residents are
concerned about the amount of water being used by people in the Las Vegas valley.
5.6. Control variables
Our control variables include Las Vegas residential characteristics and socio-demographic
characteristics.
5.6.1. Residential characteristics
We control for two important residential characteristics. First, because neighbourhoods
have different organisational qualities and environmental concerns, many of which
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 597
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
differ from the urban core (Nation, Fortney, and Wandersman 2010), we used geographic
mapping tools to categorise the neighbourhood types by distance (in mileage) from the
downtown urban core. Five neighbourhoods are identified as ‘urban core’ and are within a
5-mile radius of downtown Las Vegas. The urban core comprises one of the oldest parts of
the metropolitan area and contains, on average, higher poverty rates, more low-income
housing and higher crime rates than suburban and urban fringe areas. The urban core
neighbourhoods also have fewer public parks and are located furthest from designated
wilderness recreation areas at the metropolitan edge. We define 10 neighbourhoods located
between 5–10 miles from the urban core as ‘suburban’ and seven neighbourhoods more
than 10 miles from the urban core are identified as ‘urban fringe’. Neighbourhood age
generally decreases farther from the urban core. Suburban and urban fringe
neighbourhoods also have more parks and are located closer to wilderness recreation areas
that surround Las Vegas. Second, we control for home ownership by using a binary
variable that indicates whether respondents own or rent their current residence.
5.6.2. Socio-demographic characteristics
Based on previous studies that have found important gender, racial, ethnic and
educational differences in environmental attitudes and behaviour (Williams and Florez
2002; Kemmelmeier, Kr�ol, and Kim 2002; Whittaker, Segura, and Bowler 2005; Slimak
and Dietz 2006; Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a, Larson et al., 2011b), we control for
socio-demographic characteristics that include gender, race/ethnicity, age (in years),
education and household income.
6. Study area: Las Vegas water scarcity
The Las Vegas metropolitan area relies almost solely on water from the Colorado River
stored in the Lake Mead reservoir. Due to the numerous compacts, federal laws, court
decrees and regulatory guidelines known collectively as ‘The Law of the River’, Las
Vegas receives by far the smallest allotment of Colorado River water among the three
lower basin states (California, Arizona and Nevada) that rely on the river for their water
needs.5 Colorado River water allotments were divided in 1928, a time when decision
makers could not foresee the massive population growth that was to occur in Las Vegas
several decades later. But grow it did. Between 1950 and 1990, the Las Vegas
metropolitan population grew an astounding 1665.7%, from a little more than 48,000
residents to more than 852,000 residents (Demographia 1996). Between 1990 and 2000,
Las Vegas continued to lead the nation with an 83.3% population growth rate as the
number of residents almost doubled to more than 1.5 million (CensusScope 2000).
Population increase in the Las Vegas metropolitan region continued apace in the 2000s
with approximately half a million more people arriving between 2000 and 2007.
Population growth has slowed during the national economic recession that started in
2007, yet Las Vegas remains home to approximately 2 million residents and some
demographers estimate that the metropolitan population could more than double in size
to 4.3 million by 2040 (Lang, Sarzynski, and Muro 2008).
More people places more demands on the water infrastructure in an arid region
already pressed to its limits under drought and climate change.6 Nevada and Arizona
have negotiated water shortage sharing agreements and the US Department of Interior
recently established new water shortage guidelines for the Lake Powell and Lake Mead
reservoirs (US Bureau of Reclamation 2007). Water conservation programmes to replace
turf grass, limit residential grass lawns and restrict water usage in the Las Vegas
598 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
metropolitan area has reduced per capita water demands by more than 29% (Southern
Nevada Water Authority 2009). Yet, Las Vegas water managers estimate that even more
comprehensive conservation outreach and education, incentive programmes and rate
increases are needed to meet sustainable water consumption goals (Southern Nevada
Water Authority 2009). In 2009 the Southern Nevada Water Authority (2009) adopted a
new conservation goal that would reduce per capita consumption to 199 gallons per day
by 2035, a number that still falls short of Phoenix’s 2008 per capita consumption of
approximately 184 gallons per day (Western Resources Advocates 2010).
The need for aggressive water conservation raises questions about precisely what
policies to pursue and who will support them. Our results offer empirical data to
understand how Las Vegas residents’ environmental value orientations, knowledge of
drought and concern about water scarcity affect their support for water conservation policy.
7. Results
7.1. Analytic strategy
We perform bivariate and multivariate analyses to predict water policy support. We begin
our analysis with ANOVA testing to identify group differences in mean scores for water
policy support and NEP scale. We also perform Chi-square tests to identify group
differences for environmental knowledge and concern. Bonferroni post hoc tests confirm
significant subgroup differences among several of our socio-demographic control
variables, including education, neighbourhood type, race/ethnicity and age.7 We use
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to test the effect of environmental value
orientation, knowledge and concern on water policy support. After removing cases with
missing data, our final analytic sample is 480 Las Vegas residents. Below, we provide the
results of our bivariate descriptives and multivariate analyses.
7.2. Bivariate descriptives
Table 3 displays group differences among the four constructs being tested in this paper:
environmental value orientation, conative judgement, cognitive judgement and affective
judgement. Overall, our bivariate descriptives indicate considerable variation across
groups. For water policy support, we show that higher education and homeownership
significantly increase the likelihood of supporting water policies. For environmental
value orientation, we show that females have higher NEP scores than males and that NEP
scores are higher among residents who live closer to the downtown urban core. For
environmental knowledge, we find that 91% of whites are aware of drought conditions
compared to almost 79% of Hispanics and 83% among other racial/ethnic groups.
Knowledge of drought conditions has a positive relationship with age and is more
prevalent among homeowners than renters. Finally, women are more concerned than
men about water use in the valley as are a larger proportion of whites (91%) compared
to Hispanics (87%) and among other racial/ethnic groups (80%). Table 3 clearly
indicates that different factors influence Las Vegas residents’ environmental value
orientation, knowledge, concern and their willingness to support water policies. The
remainder of the analysis examines how well these factors predict water policy support
in multivariate models that include both independent and control variables.
7.3. Multivariate analysis
We use two analytic models to predict water policy support. First, we use the 7-item water
policy scale to predict overall support for water policy in the Las Vegas valley. Second,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 599
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
we investigate the large gap in support among the individual water policies by conducting
another series of OLS regression models that analyse the water policies receiving the least
support (e.g. increasing water price and residential water use restriction).
In Table 4, our first three models test the independent associations between each of
our environmental predictor variables and water policy support. These bivariate models
support our first hypothesis by showing that each factor is positively associated with
water policy support. Water use concern registers the largest R2 of the three
Table 3. Means and percents of sociodemographic variables on water policy support andenvironmental value orientation, knowledge, and concern, 2009 LVMASS data.
Water PolicySupport^
Mean ScoreNEP
Mean Score
Las Vegas Valleyin a DroughtPercent
Concerned inWater UsePercent
Sample 44.08 25.23 88.00 89.00GenderFemale 44.77 25.90�� 89.00 91.50�
Male 43.19 24.35�� 87.00 85.60�
Race/EthnicityWhite (Non-Hispanic) 44.65 25.21 91.20�� 90.90�
Hispanic 42.47 25.22 78.50�� 87.30�
Other Race/Ethnicity (Non-Hispanic) 42.98 25.37 83.30�� 80.00�
Age30 and younger 42.13 25.38 74.50� 87.2031-40 43.31 26.19 92.60� 88.2041-50 43.24 25.03 91.20� 91.2051-60 45.21 25.82 90.50� 91.7061-70 45.12 24.78 85.30� 89.0071 and older 44.25 24.54 90.10� 85.20Education (Degree Obtained)High School Diploma or Less 41.39�� 25.41 88.60 90.40Some College 44.15�� 25.35 87.90 85.00Bachelor’s Degree 46.00�� 25.01 85.20 94.30Graduate or Professional Degree 45.82�� 24.85 91.50 91.50Total Household Income for 2008$20,000 or Less 40.44 26.12 78.00 82.90$20,001-$40,000 44.39 25.77 88.10 88.10$40,001-$80,000 43.97 25.03 88.70 89.70$80,001 or More 45.14 24.85 90.40 90.40Neighborhood TypeUrban Core 43.10 26.10�� 88.50 86.50Suburban 44.68 25.84�� 86.90 89.30Urban Fringe 43.92 24.05�� 89.30 89.90Housing TypeOwn 44.76�� 25.09 90.50�� 89.20Rent 41.53�� 25.76 79.20�� 88.10Las Vegas Valley in a DroughtYes 45.12��� 25.81��� 93.10���
No 36.39��� 20.93��� 57.90���
Concerned in Water UseConcerned 45.28��� 25.70��� 92.30���
Not concerned 34.45��� 21.45��� 54.70���
Total N ¼ 480�p < .05, two tailed. ��p < .01, two tailed. ���p < .001, two tailed.^Note: The correlation between Water Policy and NEP is .21.
600 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
environmental factors and explains 10% of the variation in water policy support. The
independent significance of value, knowledge and concern on water policy support
justifies the inclusion of a multivariate analysis to tease out the strength of each factor.
Model 4 controls for all three environmental variables and indicates that concern about
water usage is the strongest predictor of water policy support. With a standardised
coefficient (Beta) of 0.24, residents who are concerned about the amount of water usage
in Las Vegas score 8.11 points higher on the water policy scale than those with less
concern. While environmental value orientation and knowledge remain significant
predictors, their strength of significance is reduced when all three are included in the
model simultaneously. Model 4 offers partial support for our second hypothesis that
knowledge and concern will mediate the positive relationship between value orientation
and water policy support. Instead, we show that concern about water use emerges as the
strongest predictor in the model and that drought knowledge does not appear to mediate
the relationship between value orientation and water policy support. Our results support
Table 4. OLS regression of 63-point water policy support scale, 2009 LVMASS data.
Independent Variables:Model 1(b/Beta)
Model 2(b/Beta)
Model 3(b/Beta)
Model 4(b/Beta)
Model 5(b/Beta)
Environmental Value Orientation:
NEP .37/.08��� .21/.12�� .21/.12��
Cognitive Judgment (Knowledge):Las Vegas Valley in a Drought 8.74/.27��� 4.85/.15�� 4.50/.14��
Affective Judgment (Concern):Concerned in the amount
of water being used by peoplewho live in the Las Vegas Valley
10.83/.32��� 8.11/24��� 8.02/.24���
GenderFemale vs. (Male) 1.07/.05Race/Ethnicity(White Non-Hispanic)Hispanic 1.03/.04Other Race/Ethnicity (Non-Hispanic) .72/.02Age (in years) .03/.05Education(High School or Less)Some College 2.86/.13�
Bachelor’s Degree 4.10/.15��
Graduate or Professional Degree 3.81/.13�
Income($20,000 or less)$20,001 - $40,000 2.53/.10$40,001 - $80,000 1.35/.06$80,001 and above 1.96/.08Neighborhood Type(Suburban)Urban Core -.93/-.04Urban Fringe -1.24/-.06Housing TypeRenter vs. (Owner) -2.03/-.08R-square 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.18
Total N ¼ 480; b is the unstandardised coefficient and Beta is the standardised coefficient�p < .05, two tailed. ��p < .01, two tailed. ���p < .001, two tailed.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 601
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
our third hypothesis that affective concern about water use will be the strongest predictor
of the three environmental measures. While the model R2 increases to 0.14 with the
combination of the three environmental measures, it still explains a relatively low amount
of variance in water policy support.
Model 5 includes socio-demographic and residential control variables. This model
indicates that concern about water use remains the strongest predictor of water policy
support compared to NEP endorsement and drought knowledge. The effect of each
variable remains relatively unchanged, indicating that the control variables do not
influence the strength of the environmental variables in the model. Among the control
variables, educational attainment is a significant predictor of water policy support. Our
results do not show that race, ethnicity, income, neighbourhood type and housing type are
significant predictors of water policy support.
Since our data in Table 2 indicate that Las Vegas residents are least supportive of
water policy items that impose a price increase or a mandate to limit personal water use
at home, we perform an additional analysis in Table 5 to explain the associations between
Table 5. OLS regression of least supported water policy individual items, 2009 LVMASS data.
Independent variablesIncreasing theprice of water (b/Beta)
Restricting residentialoutdoor water use (b/Beta)
Environmental value orientation:NEP �0.01/�0.02 0.05/0.11��
Cognitive judgement (Knowledge):Las Vegas Valley in a Drought 1.16/. 14�� 0.41/0.05Affective judgement (Concern):Concerned for the amount of
water being used by peoplewho live in the Las Vegas Valley
0.98/0.11� 2.12/0.22���
GenderFemale vs. (male) �0.08/�0.01 �0.12/�0.02Race/ethnicity(White non-Hispanic)Hispanic 0.12/0.02 �0.13/�0.02Other race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic) �0.86/�0.10� 0.14 /0.02Age (in years) 0.01/0.01 0.01/0.05Education(High school or less)Some College 0.01/0.01 .50/.08Bachelor’s degree 1.21/0.17�� 0.85/0.11�
Graduate or professional degree 0.55/0.07 0.88/0.11Income($20,000 or less)$20,001 �$40,000 0.73/0.11 0.54/0.07$40,001 �$80,000 0.66/0.12 �0.06/�0.01$80,001 and above 1.54/0.25�� �0.22/�0.03Neighbourhood type(Suburban)Urban core �0.07/�0.01 �0.31/�0.04Urban fringe �0.57 /�.010 �0.11/0.02Housing typeRenter vs. (owner) �0.29/�0.04 �0.27/�0.04R-square 0.15 0.11
Total N ¼ 480; b is the unstandardised coefficient and Beta is the standardised coefficient.�p < 0.05, two tailed. ��p < 0.01, two tailed. ���p < 0.001, two tailed.
602 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
environmental values, knowledge and concern and the two least supported water policies.
Our results allow us to expand our empirical discussion and support for our fourth
hypothesis, that residents are least likely to support policies that directly impact their
household income. While the mean score among our sample was only 3.75 for supporting
water price increases, residents with environmental knowledge score more than one point
higher and those concerned about water use score almost one point higher on support for
increasing the price of water. Education and income are also positively related to
increased support for water price increases. Residents with a bachelor’s degree score 1.21
points higher than those with the least education. In addition, the highest income-earning
residents score 1.54 points higher than the lowest income-earning residents. Finally,
whites (vs. other racial/ethnic groups) and residents living in suburban neighbourhoods
(vs. urban fringe) are more supportive of water price increases.
While knowledge of drought and concern about water use are important in predicting
support for water price increases, different factors predict support for restricting
residential water use. Residents with a stronger environmental value orientation and
those with greater concern about water use are more likely to support restrictions on
residential outdoor water use. We find that residents with a bachelor’s degree are more
likely to support residential water restrictions compared to residents with the least
amount of education. Ultimately, our results from Table 5 suggest that environmental
value orientation, cognitive knowledge judgement and affective concern influence water
policy support differently. We find that concern about water use is a significant predictor
of both water price increase and water restrictions. Yet, environmental value orientation
only matters in residents’ support for non-price behavioural change policy (e.g.
restricting water use for lawns, landscaping, swimming pools, etc.) but not for increasing
water prices. Conversely, knowledge of drought matters only for support to increase
water prices, but not for restricting residential water use.
8. Discussion
Our study demonstrates that Las Vegas residents vary considerably in their environmental
value orientations, knowledge of drought, concern about water use and support for water
conservation policy. Below, we explain four important results drawn from our study.
8.1. Variations in values, knowledge and concern as predictors of water policy support
First, Las Vegas residents who score higher on environmental value orientation, knowledge
about drought and concern about water use are also more supportive of water conservation
policies. Our results demonstrate that a combination of individuals’ pro-environmental
value orientations and more specific attitudinal judgements predict support of pro-
environmental policies, confirming our first hypothesis. However, while the combination of
value orientation, cognitive knowledge and affective concern proves important for
predicting water policy support, we also find an imbalance in their respective roles as
predictors. Consistent with our second hypothesis, we show that environmental value
orientation captured by the NEP scale is a less powerful predictor of water policy support
than cognitive judgements about drought knowledge and affective concern about water
use. Some studies have found that NEP endorsement is a better predictor of pro-
environmental policy support than more specific judgements such as environmental
knowledge (Hunter and Rinner 2004). Our results are consistent with tripartite attitudinal
theory that while Las Vegas residents as a whole generally express pro-environmental
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 603
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
value orientations and support implementation of most water management policies, a pro-
environmental value orientation alone does not explain water policy support.
Second, environmental value orientation and factual knowledge of drought are both
significantly associated with Las Vegas residents’ support for water policy measures. Yet,
in confirmation of our third hypothesis, it is concern about water use that emerges as the
strongest indicator of support for all water policy measures. While prior research offers
mixed conclusions about whether environmental value orientation, knowledge or concern
is more important in predicting policy support, our results align with two studies that also
find environmental concern to be a much stronger predictor than value orientations
(Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a; Larson et al. 2011b). Interestingly, these two studies also
examine water issues in the desert southwest (Phoenix, Arizona), highlighting regional
similarities in water concern and policy support.
One explanation for concern among Las Vegas residents may be that the local and
immediate threat of a declining water supply from the Colorado River/Lake Mead
reservoir generates strong emotional response from residents that is reflected in the
relationship between the affective measure of concern for water use and the conative
intent to support water conservation policies. As Gilbertson, Hurlimann, and Dolnicar’s
(2011) comparison of water scarcity and water rich Australian cities showed, those in
drought-prone regions express more concern about water scarcity and more support for
conservation. On the other hand, other research has shown that people typically express
more concern about environmental risks at broader, distal scales, such as global or
national levels compared to smaller-scale, proximate levels, such as cities or households
(Uzzell 2000; Garcia-Mira, Real, and Romay 2005; Larson et al. 2011b). This
phenomena (called the ‘hyperopia effect’) may have critical implications for
conservation as people who distance problems away from their local, personal situation
may not feel responsible to act in support of ameliorative policies (Uzzell 2000; Garcia-
Mira, Real, and Romay 2005). Given the high level of concern we recorded among Las
Vegas residents (89%) and the persistent struggle of water managers to increase water
conservation, important questions remain about how deep concern about water use runs
among Las Vegans and how it compares to actual consumption and conservation
behaviours as well as other environmental issues across several scales.
8.2. Socio-demographics of values, attitudes, and water policy support
We also find several socio-demographic patterns in environmental values, attitudes and
policy support that warrant a more comprehensive discussion of gender, age, education and
racial/ethnic background. While our results do not show a gender difference in water policy
support, we find that a higher percentage of women express pro-environmental values and
environmental concern than men. This finding concurs with extant research that shows
women express greater affective concern than men, while attitudes supporting mitigation
strategies are largely similar for women and men (Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a).
In their study of Phoenix residents’ attitudes towards water risks and policy, Larson,
Ibes, and White (2011a) found gender differences in affective judgements applied mainly
to concerns about regional water scarcity, much less so towards risks at the local
neighbourhood scale. Given comparable geographic, climatic and resource circumstances
of Phoenix and Las Vegas, similar dynamics may be at play among Las Vegas residents,
which would “pose a potential challenge for encouraging behavior change through
emotional appeals for conservation in residential areas” (Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a,
430).
604 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Another recent study of the Phoenix area also shows that older residents exhibit more
knowledge about water scarcity, yet they also appear to translate that knowledge into
greater support for water management policies (Larson et al. 2011b). Our study shows no
such relationship, which suggests that other factors besides knowledge, concern and
environmental values influence policy support among older Las Vegans. Consistent with
research that finds a positive relationship between education and pro-environmental
attitudes (Kemmelmeier, Kr�ol, and Kim 2002; Slimak and Dietz 2006), our bivariate
descriptives also show that residents with higher levels of formal education are more
likely to support water conservation policies.
Along racial and ethnic lines, we find that a higher percentage of whites than
Hispanics and other racial/ethnic groups are aware of drought conditions and are
concerned about water use. That said, high percentages in all ethnic categories are
knowledgeable and concerned, which suggests fairly widespread perception of water
scarcity as a social problem. Research regarding the influence of race and ethnicity on
environmental perceptions and concern has been mixed, with rival theories suggesting
that either Anglos express more environmental concern or that racial and ethnic
differences are negligible (Whittaker et al. 2005).
Recent research suggests that shared ethnic characteristics can shape environmental
perceptions among Hispanics and Anglos and lead to ethnic differences in concern about
environmental risks (Williams and Florez 2002; Heyd 2004; Whittaker et al. 2005; Larson
et al. 2011b). In fact, Larson et al. (2011b) noted that in Phoenix, Arizona, ethnic identity
and acculturation affect environmental perceptions, with Spanish speaking Latinos
expressing more concern about water use than Anglos. Yet precisely which cultural
beliefs explain the differences is unclear and requires further study. More research is also
needed among the Las Vegas population to understand why whites express more drought
knowledge and water use concern than Hispanics and other racial/ethnic groups, and
comparative work on differences in the southwest region between Las Vegas and Phoenix
could shed light on cultural variations among different Hispanic populations. It is clear
that these varying relationships among different demographic and socio-cultural factors
“highlights the value and validity of robust, multifaceted approaches to understanding
public perspectives on complex environmental challenges” (Larson et al. 2011b, 83).
8.3. Variations in support for specific water management policies
Fourth, our examination of specific water policies being used in the Southern Nevada
region to curb the water scarcity problem makes it very clear that residents are reluctant
to support price-based and direct behavioural policies. In confirmation of our fourth
hypothesis, we found that raising water prices was by far the least favoured of all the
policies, followed by restrictions on household water use. This pattern supports work in
Phoenix, Arizona, that also shows residents much more opposed to water price increases
than non-price conservation policies (Larson, Ibes, and White, 2011a; Larson et al.
2011b) and greater public support for voluntary efforts compared to regulatory and
economic measures (Harlan et al. 2006; Larson and Santelmann 2007). Las Vegas
residents’ aversion to price increases creates a conundrum for policy makers as some
recent studies demonstrate that raising water prices can significantly achieve water
consumption reductions, more than non-price policies (Collinge 1994; Krause, Chermak,
and Brookshire 2003; Timmins 2003; Brennan, Tapsuwan, and Ingram 2007; Olmstead
and Stavins 2009). Olmstead and Stavins (2009) noted that increasing water price acts as
a ‘signal’ for conservation, although price may have less of an impact on water demand
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 605
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
among higher income households (Harlan et al. 2009). However, Watson, Murphy, and
Kilfoyle’s (1999) work on Australian populations suggests that compared to education
strategies, water price increases can have deleterious effects on attitudes towards water
conservation.
8.4. Implications for policy education and outreach
Howe (1997) argued that water conservation takes place only under direct regulation to
shape behaviour through rules. Ultimately, it is the direct consequences or educational
campaigns that align with individual attitudes that persuade them to act. Based on work
in Sonora, Mexico, Corral-Verdugo, Bechtel, and Fraijo (2003) noted that group
differences must be considered in campaigns intended to achieve high conservation.
Similarly, in Las Vegas, efforts to draw out public support for price increases and
household water reduction may require nuanced public education and outreach
campaigns that focus on the specific cognitive and affective dimensions, as well as
population characteristics, most likely to yield the greatest gain in water conservation.
For example, we find that as individuals’ knowledge of drought and concern about water
use increases, so does their support for raising water prices. However, knowledge and
concern also vary by education, income, gender and race/ethnicity. We confirm a pattern
noted in previous studies where education and income are also positively related to
support for water prices increases (Jones and Dunlap 1992; Kemmelmeier, Kr�ol, and Kim2002). In addition, our bivariate patterns show that drought knowledge and water use
concern are higher among whites than other racial/ethnic groups. Women express more
concern about water use than do men, and homeowners are more knowledgeable of
drought conditions in the Las Vegas valley than renters. Therefore, targeted campaigns to
increase knowledge and concern about water scarcity among those with less education
and income, non-white racial/ethnic groups, men and renters, may produce the biggest
gains in support for the least preferred yet effective water conservation policies.
9. Limitations
Our findings should be considered in the context of the study’s limitations. First, our
data only enable us to assess conative or intended support of water conservation
policies, rather than actual behaviour. Future work should follow examples such as
Harlan et al. (2009), which compare values and attitudes about water conservation to
actual water use behaviours (also see, Corral-Verdugo, Bechtel, and Fraijo 2003; Clark
and Finley 2007). Second, our measurements of cognitive and affective judgements are
limited to single question measures. We suspect this might contribute to our analysis
models’ explanation of relatively low amount of variation (R2) in water policy support.
While we contend that our work benefits from using a tripartite framework, future work
may include an even more expansive range of measurements for each independent
variable. Third, our study has focused on one city in the desert southwest and we
recognise that this can be seen as a limitation to generalisability. However, as Larson
(2010, 900) noted, ‘place-based’ studies are critical precisely “because local context
significantly influences attitudes” (also see, Bonaiuto et al. 2002; Flint and Luloff
2007). Finally, an important question is what explains attitude formation and especially
the concern that people develop (or not) about water. Future research that incorporates
qualitative methods such as personal interviews and focus groups could bring much
needed insight into how people construct meanings about water, environment and their
responses to scarcity.
606 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
10. Conclusion
Understanding the diversity of human judgements about environmental issues is critical
“for designing socially acceptable policies and effective conservation programs that
require public support and behaviour change” (Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a, 416). Our
research heeds the call for context specific studies worldwide that examine how
environmental factors shape attitudes and behaviours towards policies in particular locales
(Clark and Finley 2007) and should consider adding qualitative descriptions of residents’
decision making in locations where values conflict with policy. As a metropolitan area
reliant on limited supplies from a highly stressed water infrastructure, Las Vegas, Nevada,
is an important context to investigate questions about attitudes and water policy, and can
offer a point for comparison to other urban contexts in both the US Southwest and globally.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Journal of Environmental Planning and Management reviewers for theirinsightful suggestions on improving the article. In addition, thanks to the UNLV Urban WorkingGroup, the LVMASS team, UNLV Urban Sustainability Initiative, and colleagues in the Cityof Las Vegas. This research was supported by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas PresidentialResearch Award and the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition.
Notes
1. Although we build upon research about ‘concern’ or ‘attitudes’, we follow Larson’s terminology,which uses “the broader notions of environmental perspectives or judgements to clearly defineand evaluate concern, attitudes, and related constructs as distinctive domains of judgment”(Larson, Ibes, and White 2011a, 418, original emphasis).
2. Fransson and G€arling (1999) also noted that some research shows that general environmentalconcern affects more specific environmental attitudes towards environmental issues (also see,Dunlap and Van Liere 1984; Black, Stern, and Elworth 1985).
3. AAPOR guidelines are used by the Cannon Survey Center to calculate initial response rates.After obtaining vacancy rates from 2009 HUD data to account for the high volume of vacancyin some neighbourhoods, our response rate was recalculated and resulted in an increase from32% to 40%.
4. Respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with each of the 10-item state-ments. The statements included: (1) We are approaching the limits of the number of people theValley can support; (2) Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the Earth unlivable;(3) Plants & animals have as much right as humans to exist; (4) The so-called ‘ecological crisis’facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated; (5) The Earth is like a spaceship with very lim-ited room for resources; (6) The balance of nature in & around the desert is strong enough tocope with the impacts of growth in the Valley; (7) Humans have a right to modify the naturalenvironment to suit their needs; (8) When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disas-trous consequences; (9) Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of na-ture; and (10) Humans are severely abusing the environment. We further modified statements 1and 6 to specify the Las Vegas ‘Valley’ and ‘desert’ as the place of environmental concern.The original NEP statements use the term ‘Earth’ as place of concern.
5. Nevada receives only 4% of the total Lower Basin allotment of Colorado River water, whileArizona receives 37.30% and California receives 58.70%. Las Vegas, Nevada’s 2 million resi-dents receive 90% of their water from the Colorado River.
6. The Colorado River system presently faces the worst drought on record, as precipitation on theColorado Plateau, which feeds the Colorado River, has been highly variable since 2000. A con-sequence is declining reservoir levels in Lake Mead (now at 51% capacity), Las Vegas’ mainwater source (Webb and Brown 2012).
7. Bonferroni post hoc tests confirm significant subgroup differences between the following sub-groups: (non-Hispanic whites vs. Hispanic at 0.01); (non-Hispanic white vs. non-Hispanic mi-nority at 0.05); (age 30 or younger vs. age 31–40 at 0.05); (urban core vs. urban fringe at 0.05);(suburban vs. urban fringe at 0.05); (high school education or less vs. Bachelor’s Degree at0.05); (high school education or less vs. graduate or professional degree at 0.05).
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 607
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
References
Bamberg, S., and G. Moser. 2007. “Twenty years After Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A NewMeta-analysis of Psycho-social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behavior.” Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 27: 14–25.
Bellair, P. E. 1997. “Social Interaction and Community Crime: Examining the Importance ofNeighbor Networks.” Criminology 35 (4): 677–704.
Black, J. S., P. C. Stern, and J. T. Elworth. 1985. “Personal and Contextual Influences on HouseholdEnergy Adaptations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 3–21.
Bonaiuto, M., G. Carrus, H. Martorella, and M. Bonnes. 2002. “Local Identity Processes andEnvironmental Attitudes in Land Use Changes: The Case of Natural Protected Areas.” Journalof Economic Psychology 23: 631–653.
Brennan, D., S. Tapsuwan, and G. Ingram. 2007. “The Welfare Costs of Urban Outdoor WaterRestrictions.” The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 51: 243–261.
Buttel, F. H. 1987. “New Directions in Environmental Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 13:465–488.
Cameron, T. A., and M. B. Wright. 1990. “Determinants of Household Water Conservation RetrofitActivity: A Discrete Choice Model Using Survey Data.” Water Resources Research 26 (2):179–188.
Campbell, K. E., and B. A. Lee. 1992. “Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration,Need, or Time?” Social Forces 70 (4): 1077–1100.
Castro, J. E. 2007. “Water Governance in the Twentieth-first Century.” Ambiente & Sociedade10 (2): 97–118.
CensusScope. 2000. “United States Population Growth Ranking.” http://www.censusscope.org/us/rank_popl_growth.html.
Clark, W. A. and J.C. Finley. 2007. “Determinants of Water Conservation Intention in Blagoevgrad,Bulgaria.” Society & Natural Resources 20 (7): 613–627.
Collinge, R. A. 1994. “Transferable Rate Entitlements: The Overlooked Opportunity in MunicipalWater Pricing.” Public Finance Review 22 (1): 46–64.
Corral-Verdugo, V. 2002. “A Structural Model of Proenvironmental Competency.” Environmentand Behavior 34 (4): 531–549.
Corral-Verdugo, V., and M. Frias-Armenta. 2006. “Personal Normative Beliefs, AntisocialBehavior, and Residential Water Conservation.” Environment and Behavior 38: 406–421.
Corral-Verdugo, V., R. Bechtel, and B. Fraijo. 2003. “Environmental Beliefs and WaterConservation: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 247–257.
Corral-Verdugo, V., G. Carrus, M. Bonnes, G. Moser, and J. B. P., Sinha. 2008. “EnvironmentalBeliefs and Endorsement of Sustainable Development Principles in Water Conservation: Towarda New Human Interdependence Paradigm Scale.” Environment and Behavior 40 (5): 703–725.
Dalhuisen, J. M., R. J. G. M. Florax, H. L. F. de Groot, and P. Nijkamp. 2003. “Price andIncome Elasticities of Residential Water Demand: A Meta-Analysis.” Land Economics 79 (2):292–308.
De Groot, J., and L. Steg. 2007. “General Beliefs and the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Role ofEnvironmental Concerns in the TPB.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (8): 1817–1836.
De Groot, J. I. M., and L. Steg. 2008. “Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related toEnvironmental Significant Behavior: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and BiosphericValue Orientations.” Environment and Behavior 40 (3): 330–354.
de Leeuw, E. D. 2005. “To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys.” Journal ofOfficial Statistics 21 (2): 233–255.
Demographia. 1996. “Top 50 US Metropolitan Areas in 1996: Population from 1950.” Wendell CoxConsultancy. http://www.demographia.com/dm-usmet-fr50.htm
Dietz, T., A. Dan, and R. Shwom. 2007. “Support for Climate Change Policy: Social Psychologicaland Social Structural Influences.” Rural Sociology 72 (2): 185–214.
Dolnicar, S., A. Hurlimann, and B. Gr€un. 2012. “Water Conservation Behavior in Australia.”Journal of Environmental Management 105: 44–52.
Dunlap, R. E. 2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to WorldwideUse.” The Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1): 3–18.
Dunlap, R. E., and R. E. Jones. 2002. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and MeasurementIssue.” In Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by R. E. Dunlap and W. Michelson,482–524. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
608 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. “The New environmental Paradigm.” The Journal ofEnvironmental Education 9 (4): 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1984. “Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm andConcern for Environmental Quality.” Social Science Quarterly 64: 1013–1028.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. “Measuring Endorsement ofthe New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 425–442.
Dziegielewski, B. 1991. “The Drought is Real: Designing a Successful Water ConservationCampaign.” UNESCO/ORCAYT. Presented at inaugural ceremony of international seminar onefficient water use, October 21–25, Montevideo, Uruguay. http://www.unesco.org.uy/phi/libros/efficient_water/windice.html
Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt BraceJovanovich College Publishers.
Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 2007. ”The Advantages of an Inclusive Definition of Attitude.” SocialCognition 25: 582–602.
Ester, P. 1981. “Environmental Concern in the Netherlands.” In Progress in Resource Managementand Environmental Planning, edited by T. O’Riordan and K. R. Turner, 81–108. Chichester:Wiley & Sons.
Flint, C. G., and A. E. Luloff. 2007. “Community Activeness in Responses to Forest Disturbance inAlaska.” Society and Natural Resources 20 (5): 431–450.
Fransson, N., and T. G€arling. 1999. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions,Measurement Methods, and Research Findings.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19:369–382.
Frisk, E., and K. L. Larson. 2011. “Educating for Sustainability: Principles & Practices forTransformative Action.” Journal of Sustainability Education 2: 1–20.
Garcia-Mira, R., E. Real, and J. Romay. 2005. “Temporal and Spatial Dimensions in the Perceptionof Environmental Problems: An Investigation of the Concept of Environmental Hyperopia.”International Journal of Psychology 40: 5–10.
Gardner, G. T., and P. C. Stern. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gilbertson, M., A. Hurlimann, and S. Dolnicar. 2011. “Does Water Context Influence Behaviourand Attitudes to Water Conservation?” Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 18(1): 47–60.
Gray, D. B., 1985. Ecological Beliefs and Behaviors: Assessment and Change. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.
Gregory, G. D., and M. Di Leo. 2003. “Repeated Behavior and Environmental Psychology: TheRole of Personal Involvement and Habit Formation in Explaining Water Consumption.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33: 1261–1296.
Harlan, S. L., S. T. Yabiku, L. T. Larsen, and A. J. Brazel. 2009. “Household Water Consumption inan Arid City: Affluence, Affordance, and Attitudes.” Society and Natural Resources 22: 691–709.
Harlan, S. L., M. Budruk, A. Gustafson, K. Larson, D. Ruddell, V. Smith, S. T. Kerry Yabiku,and A. Wutich. 2006. “Phoenix Area Social Survey: Community and Environment in a DesertMetropolis.” Phoenix, AZ: Global Institute of Sustainability. http://caplter.asu.edu/docs/contributions/2007_PASS2.pdf
Heyd, T. 2004. “Themes in Latin American Environmental Ethics: Community, Resistance, andAutonomy.” Environmental Values 13 (2): 223–242.
Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N. Tomera. 1987. “Analysis and Synthesis of Research onResponsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Education18: 1–18.
Howe, C. W. 1997. “Increasing Efficiency in Water Markets: Examples From the Western UnitedStates.” In Water Marketing – The Next Generation, edited by T.L. Anderson and P.J. Hill, 79–100. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hunter, L. M., and L. Rinner. 2004. “The Association Between Environmental Perspective andKnowledge and Concern with Species Diversity.” Society and Natural Resources 17: 517–532.
Jones, R. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1992. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have theyChanged Over Time?” Rural Sociology 57 (1): 28–47.
Kaiser, F. G., S. Wolfing, and U. Fuhrer. 1999. “Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behavior.”Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1): 1–19.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 609
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Kemmelmeier, M., G. Kr�ol, and Y. H. Kim. 2002. “Values, Economics, and Pro-environmentalAttitudes in 22 Societies.” Cross-Cultural Research 36 (3): 256–285.
Krause, K., J. M. Chermak, and D. S. Brookshire. 2003. “The Demand for Water: ConsumerResponse to Scarcity.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 23 (2): 167–191.
Krivo, L. J., and R. D. Peterson. 1996. “Extremely Disadvantaged Neighbors and Urban Crime.”Social Forces 75: 619–650.
Kruger, D. 2008. “Verifying the Operational Definition of Neighborhood for the PsychosocialImpact of Structural Deterioration.” Journal of Community Psychology 36 (1): 53–60.
Lam, S. 2006. “Predicting Intention to Save Water: Theory of Planned Behavior, ResponseEfficacy, Vulnerability, and Perceived Efficiency of Alternative Solutions.” Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology 36 (11): 2803–2824.
Lang, R. E., A. Sarzynski, and M. Muro. 2008. “Mountain Megas: America’s Newest MetropolitanPlaces and a Federal Partnership to Help Them Prosper.” Brookings Mountain WestPublications, Paper 3.
Larson, K. L., 2010. “An Integrated Theoretical Approach to Understanding the Sociocultural Basisof Multidimensional Environmental Attitudes.” Society and Natural Resources 23: 898–907.
Larson, K. L., and M. V. Santelmann. 2007. “An Analysis of the Relationship Between Residents’Proximity to Water and Attitudes about Resource Protection.” Professional Geography 59 (3):316–333.
Larson, K. L., D. C. Ibes, and D. D. White. 2011a. “Gendered Perspectives about Water Risks andPolicy Strategies: A Tripartite Conceptual Approach.” Environment and Behavior 43 (3): 415–438.
Larson, K. L., A. Wutich, D. White, T. Munoz-Erickson, and S. Harlan. 2011b. “MultifacetedPerspectives on Water Risks and Policies: A Cultural Domains Approach in a SouthwesternCity.” Human Ecology Review 18 (1): 75–87.
Lipchin, C. D., R. Antonius, K. Roishmawi, A. Afanah, R. Orthofer, and J. Trottier. 2005. “PublicPerceptions and Attitudes Towards the Declining Water Level of the Dead Sea Basin: A Multi-cultural Analysis.” In Palestinian and Israeli Environmental Narratives, edited by S. Schoenfeld.Toronto: Centre for International and Security Studies, York University, Ontario: 263–280.
Mainieri, T., E. G. Barnett, T. R. Valero, J. B. Unipan, and S. Oslemp. 1997. “Green Buying: TheInfluence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Social Psychology137: 189–204.
Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts andValuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Middlestadt, S., M. Grieser, O. Hernandez, K. Tubaishat, J. Sanchak, B. Southwell, andR. Schwartz. 2001. “Turning Minds on and Faucets off: Water Conservation Education inJordanian Schools.” Journal of Environmental Education 32: 37–45.
Miller, E., and L. Buys. 2008. “The Impact of Social Capital on Residential-Affecting Behaviours ina Drought-Prone Australian Community.” Society and Natural Resources 21: 244–257.
Morenoff, J. D., R. J. Sampson, and S. W. Raudenbush. 2001. “Neighborhood Inequality, CollectiveEfficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Homicide.” Criminology 39: 517–560.
Nation, M., T. Fortney, and A. Wandersman. 2010. “Race, Place, and Neighboring: Social TiesAmong Neighbors in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Contexts.” Environment and Behavior42: 581.
O’Connor, R. E., R. J. Bord, and A. Fisher. 1999. “Risk Perceptions, General EnvironmentalBeliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change.” Risk Analysis 19 (3): 461–471.
Olmstead, S. M., and R. N. Stavins. 2009. “Comparing Price and Non-Price Approaches to UrbanWater Conservation.”Water Resources Research 45 (W04301): 1–10.
Pint, E. M. 1999. “Household Responses to Increased Water Rates During the California Drought.”Land Economics 75 (2): 246–266.
Quillian, L. 2003. “How Long are Exposures to Poor Neighborhoods? The Long-Term Dynamics ofEntry and Exit From Poor Neighborhoods.” Population Research and Policy Review 22 (3):221–249.
Sampson, R. J., and S.W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: ANew Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology 105: 603–651.
Sampson, R. J., J. D. Morenoff, and T. Gannon-Rowley. 2002. “Assessing ‘Neighborhood Effects’:Social Processes and New Directions in Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 443–478.
610 M. Salvaggio et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014
Schultz, P. W., and L. Zelezney. 1999. “Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidencefor Consistency Across 14 Countries.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 255–265.
Scott, D., and F. K. Willits. 1994. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A PennsylvaniaSurvey.” Environment and Behavior 26 (2): 239–260.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 2008. “Lake Mead Could Be Dry by 2021.” San Diego:University of California. http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID ¼ 876
Slimak, M. W., and T. Dietz. 2006. “Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception.”Risk Analysis 26 (6): 1689–1705.
Southern Nevada Water Authority. 2009. “Conservation Plan 2009–2013.” http://www.snwa.com/assets/pdf/about_reports_conservation_plan.pdf
Stern, P. 2000. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal ofSocial Issues 56 (3): 407–424.
Stern, P. and T. Dietz. 1994. “The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.” Journal of Social Issues56 (3): 407–424.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and G. A. Guagnano. 1995a. “The New Ecological Paradigm in Social-Psychological Context.” Environment and Behavior 27 (6): 723–743.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, T. Kalof, and G. A. Guagnano. 1995b. “Values, Beliefs and Pro-environmentalAction: Attitude Formation Toward Emergent Attitude Objects.” Journal of Applied SocialPsychology 25: 1611–1636.
Timmins, C. 2003. “Demand-side Technology Standards Under Inefficient Pricing Regimes:Are They Effective Water Conservation Tools in the Long Run?” Environmental ResourceEconomics 26: 107–124.
Trumbo, C. W., and G. J. O’Keefe. 2005. “Intention to Conserve Water: Environmental Values,Reasoned Action, and Information Effects Across Time.” Society & Natural Resources 18:573–585.
United States Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. “Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lowe BasinShortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.” http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies.html
United States Census Bureau. 2010. “American Community Survey, 1-year Estimates.” AmericanFact Finder. http://factfinder.census.gov
United States Department of Commerce. 1994. “Geographic Areas Reference Manual 10-1 and11-1.” Bureau of the Census.
Uzzell, D. 2000. “Global Water Resources: Vulnerability From Climate Change and PopulationGrowth.” Science 289: 284–288.
Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Reviewof Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 181–197.
Vaske, J. J., and M. P., Donnelly. 1999. “A Value-Attitude-Behavior Model Predicting WildlandPreservation Voting Intentions.” Society Natural Resources 12: 523–527.
Watson, R., M. Murphy, and F. Kilfoyle. 1999. “An Opportunistic Field Experiment in CommunityWater Conservation.” Population and Environment 20 (6): 545–560.
Webb, R. S., and C. Brown. 2012. “NOAA-WGA Western Region Quarterly Climate Impactsand Outlook.” http://www.drought.gov/media/imageserver/NIDIS/DEWS/reports/Western_Region_Quarterly_Climate_Impacts_and_Outlook_Sept_2012_Updated9_21.pdf
Western Resources Advocates. 2010.“Arizona Water Meter: A Comparison of Water ConservationPrograms in 15 Arizona Communities.” http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/azmeter/phoenixsumm.pdf
Whittaker, M., G. M. Segura, and S. Bowler. 2005. “Racial/Ethnic Group Attitudes TowardsEnvironmental Protection in California: Is ‘Environmentalism’ Still a White Phenomenon?”Political Research Quarterly 58: 435–447.
Williams, B., and Y. Florez. 2002. “Do Mexican-Americans Perceive Environmental IssuesDifferently Than Caucasians? A Study of Cross Ethnic Variation in Perceptions Related toWater in Tucson.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (2): 303–310.
Woldoff, R. A. 2002. “The Effects of Local Stressors on Neighborhood Attachment.” Social Forces81 (1): 87–116.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 611
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 17:
09 0
5 O
ctob
er 2
014